if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts. (2HK7)

people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk. (2HK8)

instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen. (2HKE)

(when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, 'please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please.'' (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.) (2HKF)

thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20100930@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices! (2HKG)

Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy. (2HKK)

... if you are coming to the session, please add your name above (plus your affiliation, if you aren't already a member of the community) above; or e-mail <peter.yim@cim3.com> so that we can reserve enough resources to support everyone's participation. ...(2HKU)

(if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ oor-forum ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <oor-forum-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system. (2HL5)

Session Topic: "OOR-IPR session 3: discussion and consensus on licensing arrangements for the OOR Initiative, and positions we might take on related IPR issues"(2HLF)

This "OOR-IPR mini-series" will, hopefully, start a dialog among the global ontology community, to specifically address IPR issues relating to the "open ontology repository (OOR)" initiative. The discussion will, invariably, touch upon IPR issues pertaining to ontology in general as well. (2HLG)

This mini-series is jointly organized by the OOR initiative, the Ontolog-community, NCBO (US National Center for Biomedical Ontology), CC (Creative Commons), IAOA (the International Association for Ontology and its Applications) and OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards). (2HLH)

Given the complexity of the issues involved, one can look as this mini-series to merely be the beginning of a quest, by the collaborating parties and their communities, to fully understand the issues, and to get themselves into a position to address them. (2HLI)

That software contributions to the OOR effort has to carry a compatible, non-reciprocal, "gift," open-source license. If one is not specified by the contributor, the software license will default to the "Simplified BSD License" (FreeBSD License). (2I8R)

it is also acceptable if the software contribution in question is in the public domain (2I8T)

Any content contribution to OOR should specify an IPR license, as part of the OOR "gatekeeping" requirements, which will be maintained in the content contribution metadata. Each repository using the OOR software can specify its own set of acceptable IPR content licenses. (2I8U)

That content (essentially ontologies or other "knowledge organizational structures (KOS's)") contributed to the open public instance of OOR (which the OOR team will operate) will either one of the following: (2I8V)

modify the strawman based on today's conversation, essentially in removing "compatible" gift licenses as much as we can, and adding a bullet on accepting libraries (Apache and LGPL) for software contributions; and then float that to the mailing lists for further discussion and consensus building as planned; (2IGK)

starting a wikipage to develop and substantiate our position on "no ontology patents;" (2IGL)

check if there is serious objection (from the co-organizing communities) in our posting the two "no patents" positions ... if there is no serious objection to do it, we'll start a wikipage to collect endorsements to those positions; (2IGM)

make contact and "recruit" legal professionals who will be willing to work with us (on a pro bono basis, at least initially, possibly long haul) so we do have proper legal advice and opinion when the team needs to deal with IPR issues in the future (2IGN)

AlexGarcia: should all ontologies adopt a license? I mean as soon as a repository is part of the
federation should those ontologies being hosted by those repositories part of the federation adopt
one licensing schema? (2IKP)

JamieClark: I actually think ontologies are useful as an instance of proof that the existing IP
legal regime has some holes and uncertainties. So a facile statement that ontologies are, or are
not, covered, seems of little value. (2IKQ)

AlexGarcia: not all the ontologies being hosted by swoogle have the same licensing schema (2IKS)

JamieClark: Bruce says (if I understand correctly): FreeBSD implicitly includes a patent license due
to the patent exhausting doctrine, but doesn't hit the hot button of an explicit patent grant. (2IKT)

BrucePerens: Right. It's the doctrine of patent exhaustion, and the fact that the license does not
explicitly say it only grants copyright rights. (2IKU)

AlexGarcia: sourceforge.net makes it easy for people to use their repository by providing several
licenses for the projects they host (2IKW)

BrucePerens: But not all of the stuff on SourceForge is meant to be combined. We will be combining
ontologies. Open Source projects that are meant to be combining pieces arrive at a common set of
compatible licenses. (2IKX)

JamieClark: Bruce and I aren't disagreeing here: any contributor who thinks their stuff IS
executable (or bears similar use characteristics) ought to have the ability to involve a license
that (like BSD) gives them as-is-whereis-waiver protection. (2IL2)

BrucePerens: Jamie, is the contributor the one who needs to determine that, or the person who might
have to process the ontology? (2IL3)

JamieClark: @Bruce: well, if we let people who contribute have a choice, the decision's made by each
of them at design-time. Then at run-time, each user decides whether the aggregated rights on offer
are good enough for their planned use. (Or they let some filtering function like an IPR rule
substitute for their own judgment.) (2IL7)

BrucePerens: That's why I'd rather grant the right by default. Why make things harder for the user? (2IL8)

AlexGarcia: which is run-time for ontologies? is it run-time for the software using the ontologies? (2IL9)

StuartTurner: Are the licenses mentioned so far those of interest or desired or are they in fact the
existing licenses of all software, including libraries, in the current OOR technology stack? (2ILA)

BrucePerens: Usual $12,000 charge for me to explain this to the customer's lawyer, and then the
lawyer charges that much too. (2ILB)

StuartTurner: We had Palamida perform a IP analysis on a set of proprietary code in order for us to
remove IP restrictions and replace components with compatible open source libraries. These services
were gifted, but we had the impression the costs were at least what Bruce mentioned. (2ILC)

BrucePerens: That's right. Include a GPL component in software and you have to treat the entire work
as GPL until you've removed that component. Which I generally like for my software but it might not
work for you. (2ILD)

BrucePerens: LGPL can be combined with other licenses. There are additional requirements on
distribution. You must be able to replace the LGPL component in situ, so we usually distribute it as
a DLL. (2ILQ)

JamieClark: I agree BSD is optimally useful. But you are already talking about going out with a set
of tools that's pregnant with Mozilla and Eclipse. So of what relevance is a generalized desire for
BSD terms, if getting there would require rework of all the software packages you are now
assembling? (2ILX)

PeterYim: because "as open as possible; as free as possible" is an important part of the OOR vision,
and "(2-clause) Simplified BSD" comes closest to that (than the Mozilla or Eclipse licenses) (2ILY)

StuartTurner: We are exposing to the community (healthcare/NIH) information about relevant extant
ontologies. Our objective is more a registry than a repository. Despite clearly wishing for
universal adoption of open source and open content licensing, we have a considerable number of
ontologies (also terminologies/vocabularies) that have proprietary licensing that is not compatible
with this vision. Excluding these ontologies is not consistent with our goals of informing the
community, unfortunately, so we need to remain agnostic regarding the chosen license (for content).
We also wish to identify a canonical and current source (IRI/URI/OID) for a given license as well. (2IM7)

PeterYim: @Jamie - good point about substantiating our position with "why" we don't want to see
ontologies be patentable (2IM8)

PeterYim: maybe we should start a wikipage to build out the substantiation to our position (2IM9)

JamieClark: i think we could contribute substantially to that debate, yes (2IMA)

JamieClark: Among other things, JohnWilbanks (who's absent today) told us 3 weeks ago that his group
is going to publish further on this point. (2IMB)

BrucePerens: Software patents are the elephant in the living room of Open Source. (2IMC)

BrucePerens: Tim Berners-Lee and W3C would probably join you in calling for there to be no patents
on ontologies. (2IMD)

PeterYim: @Bruce - can you provide names of people who might provide pro bono legal help to this
cause? (2IME)

PeterYim: Action items: (i) modify the strawman based on today's conversation, essentially in
removing "compatible" gift licenses as much as we can, and adding a bullet on libraries (Apache and
LGPL) .... and float that to the mailing lists for further discussion and consensus as planned; (ii)
starting a wikipage to develop and substantiate our position on "no ontology patents;" (iii) check
if there is serious objection (from the co-organizing communities) in our posting the two "no
patents" positions ... if there is no serious objection to do it, we'll start a wikipage to collect
endorsements to those positions; (iv) make contact and "recruit" legal professionals who will be
willing to work with us (on a pro bono basis, at least initially, possibly long haul) so we do have
proper legal advice and opinion when the team needs to deal with IPR issues in the future (2IMI)

... upon adoption as a consensus by the participants at this session, this policy will be circulated via the community mailing list(s) and will be opened to comments from the rest of the community for one week. Barring serious objection (under which circumstances, the subject will be re-opened to debate by those involved), this OOR IPR Policy (non-substantive edits included, as appropriate) will be adopted and go into effect as of 15-Oct-2010.(2I99)

if you are already subscribed, post to <oor-forum [at] ontolog.cim3.net> (2HM1)

(if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ oor-forum ] listserv, by sending a blank email to <oor-forum-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system. (2HM2)

more general issues related to Ontology (say, IPR issues relating more to ontology in general, rather than to OOR specifically) are discussed at the [ontolog-forum] mailing list, which all members of the Ontolog community are already subscribed to. If what we do here aligns well with your professional interest, consider joining the community. Membership details can be found here. (2HM3)

suggestion: its best that you listen to the session while having the presentation opened in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker. (2HMA)

Take a look, also, at the rich body of knowledge that this community has built together, over the years, by going through the archives of noteworthy past Ontolog events. (References on how to subscribe to our podcast can also be found there.) (2HMB)